March 27, 2000

Flag protections would chip away at precious rights

You probably don't think about it much, but the Constitution is part of who you are. That world-famous American can-do cockiness was born in liberty and nurtured by constitutional protections.

But don't get too comfortable.

Even as you read this, a movement is afoot to scale back some of your rights. Worse yet, it's being done in the name of patriotism. Worst of all, those doing it would use the very instrument of liberty to usurp it.

The U.S. Senate is expected to vote soon on a constitutional amendment that would say: ""The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.''

No big deal, you might say. In fact, you might think it's a very good idea to protect that symbol of our liberty, Old Glory.

But the proposed amendment would protect the symbol at the expense of the substance.

The flag is a beautiful and inspirational sight because it represents the freedoms and liberties outlined in the Constitution. Those freedoms include the right to express views the majority might find offensive. People who burn the flag for political protest are expressing some of those views.

You might not agree with the method or the message, but the protester is exercising rights we all treasure. Once the government starts limiting the expression of political views it doesn't like, we're all in trouble. Your unpopular opinion could be next.

A group of senators who voted against the flag protection amendment in the Senate Judiciary Committee explained why: ""This unprecedented use of the Constitution of the United States to limit rather than expand the liberties of ordinary Americans defies the long established principle that the Constitution is a limitation on government and not individuals.''

Sens. Patrick Leahy, Edward Kennedy, Herb Kohl, Russell Feingold and Robert Torricelli also said: ""It would be the cruelest irony if, in a misguided effort to honor the symbol of that freedom, we were to undermine the most precious of our freedoms, the freedoms of the First Amendment.''

They said it well.

The Constitution protects your right to dance to the tune that moves your feet. Congress has no business trying to control the music.

Anyone remember the names of those two characters who tried to burn an American flag in the outfield at Dodger Stadium on April 25, 1976?

We don't, and doubt whether anyone else does, either. Why should they?

But millions of Americans know who saved the flag : former Dodgers outfielder and current Dodgers broadcaster Rick Monday, who was playing for the Chicago Cubs at the time.

That incident and still-vivid memories of it demonstrate the attachment most Americans have for Old Glory - and the disgust they have for those who would deface it.

What happened at Dodger Stadium during that bicentennial year also helps illustrate why we believe it would be a mistake for the Senate to endorse a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to prohibit the desecration of the flag . There is no need for one, as we have said in the past.

Most Americans respect their flag because they are devoted to what it stands for, much of which is written down in our cherished Bill of Rights. And that's what's really at stake here - defending the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that free-speech provisions of the First Amendment , the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights, make it unlawful for Congress to prohibit desecration of the flag . Many members of Congress have been trying to get around that ruling by approving an amendment to the Constitution and submitting it to the states for ratification.

We respect the patriotism of people like Dodgers general manager Tommy Lasorda, who spoke so forcefully on behalf of the proposed amendment Wednesday during a Senate hearing.

But we also feel that amending the Constitution might result in unintended consequences that could weaken the Bill of Rights. That in turn could erode the liberties of all Americans.

There also is a danger that the adoption and ratification of the amendment might play into the flag burners' hands by paving the way for manufactured confrontations that would publicize their causes. We don't think the Senate should fall for that trick by approving the amendment .

Don't get us wrong. We aren't carrying the torch for flag burners. We have nothing but contempt for their tactics.

What the flag stands for is more important than pieces of cloth.

Cloth is easily replaced. Restoring a defaced portion of the fabric of this nation - the Bill of Rights - would be much more difficult.

The Sacramento Bee
Sacramento, Calif.
July 6, 1998

Among the most stirring sights of a holiday weekend such as Independence Day is the blossoming of flags in neighborhoods and public spaces across the land. For us, Old Glory has always been an especially striking banner; its vivid contrast of horizontal stripes and the solid blue quadrant of bright stars stand out proudly in any gathering of flags. It seems to wave with particular majesty against a hot blue summer sky.

And as it waves, it serves as a reminder of the freedoms for which it stands. Central among those is one value -- freedom of expression -- that is under attack in the U.S. Senate this week.

Supporters of a much-debated constitutional amendment to make "physical desecration" of the American flag a criminal offense have brought the measure before the body once again. A final hearing is scheduled Wednesday, although all necessary committee approvals are already in hand and a vote could be taken at any time.

Observers say supporters of the ban are very close to victory this time. Two-thirds of the senators must vote yes to pass the amendment , and only two or three undecided votes stand in the way of that victory. The Wednesday hearing has been called, observers believe, simply to rally support and put more pressure on undecided senators before the voting.

It is easy to see why politicians with no real commitment to civil liberties would line up behind the amendment . It is truly cheap symbolism, using veneration of the flag to cast themselves as defenders of a central American icon. If you don't care about the truly important civic virtues of free speech and free expression, this is a painless, popular position to support.

But the fact is, the flag is in no danger. Every now and then somebody burns a flag or dances on it at a rally -- although far less often than one might think. A study of the period between 1777 (when the flag was adopted) and 1989 found just 45 reported flag burnings, mostly during Vietnam War protests. These infrequent desecrations, however despicable, have hardly undermined the republic.

Our bulwark against attacks on liberty is our Constitution, the document senators are now poised to amend. It is the sacred text of American democracy, and ought to be changed rarely and only for especially compelling reasons. That has traditionally been the test. Despite 11,000 attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution, only 27 have been successful. (Californians, in particular, should know the dangers of allowing a constitution to be too casually amended for flavor-of-the-month causes.)

The flag amendment failed by just three votes in the Senate three years ago. A closer margin is predicted this time around. Friends of free expression must hope the country's traditions will stiffen enough senatorial spines to withstand this latest cheap assault on liberty.

San Francisco Examiner
San Francisco
May 24, 1999

What 'Old Glory' stands for
Instead of a misguided mission to protect a piece of cloth, Congress should fight to preserve freedom symbolized by the flag.

No one wants to trash what the American flag stands for. "Old Glory" represents the values that make America great: All the freedoms we sometimes take for granted in our everyday lives until we're reminded how important they are by seeing or reading about a despotic regime in another part of the world.

But symbolism and substance are easy to confuse.

Again this year in Congress, a strong effort is being mounted to enact a constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of the American flag.

Such appeals to patriotism have a strong pull. Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein - normally a strong defender of civil liberties - can't avoid the gravitational attraction.
She and her colleagues in Congress should think twice.

Patriotism means standing up for freedom itself, not symbols.

If it means anything, the Stars and Stripes must be the defender of anyone who would take the freedom to dissent so far as to put a match to a flag, or trample it underfoot or cut it into a thousand pieces.

Feinstein and her colleagues should listen to Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., who said: "I hate it when a couple of jerks desecrate the flag, but I don't think we should amend the Constitution. The First Amendment is the core rule we should live by."

They should listen to Jim Warner, a U.S. Marine pilot who endured nearly six years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam:

"The fact is, our anger is aroused by the burning of the flag. It could not be more clear: An act that is filled with meaning is expression. No government ever constituted upon this Earth has had the moral authority to punish for the content of expression. If our enemies act without moral restraint, that does not justify us in emulating them."

And they should heed former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who wrote in a 1989 decision classifying flag burning as a form of protected political speech:

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Congress should consider that it is the strength of our system - symbolized by the flag - that allows us to grant freedom of speech without limit. And that restricting expression in any form would be an admission of weakness.

Liberty for all is at its strongest when we defend the right to express ideas we hate.

As soon as one emblem is protected, others can't be far behind. After Congress saves the flag, it may be called on to preserve the dignity of the national anthem by requiring that all citizens stand. And shouldn't the president, as a national symbol, be immune from criticism during time of war? Shouldn't cartoons demeaning Congress be outlawed?

A flag is a piece of cloth, a symbol. It shouldn't be confused with the values it represents.

Those cherished values already have an amendment to protect them - and the citizens who exercise them - from being trampled by overzealous government.

The irony is strong, but true: A constitutional amendment to prevent the desecration of the flag is itself a desecration of what America stands for.

The Gazette
Colorado Springs, Colo.

Feb. 19, 2000

Shielding the flag
No need to protect Old Glory from the liberty she stands for

Who among us has not heard the old saw, "I might not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it"? Americans are taught from our earliest years that this is a free country, we can go where we want, do what we want and say what we want with few restrictions. That’s why we love our country. It’s one reason why over the years millions of immigrants have come to these shores in search of a better life for themselves and their children. Our freedom is the reason these new Americans, their children and their grandchildren, have fought in the wars of this nation, to guarantee their own freedom and that of future generations.

Most Americans, veterans and non-veterans alike, believe in the freedoms represented by the American flag . Few would argue that the Stars and Stripes doesn’t represent our country and all that it stands for. Now, however, this single most recognizable symbol of our freedom is at the center of a movement in Congress to curtail that same freedom. The so-called flag -burning amendment passed the House last June and the Senate is planning a vote March 28. Senate Joint Resolution 14 would ban any desecration of an American flag .

As it stands now, burning a flag is considered constitutionally protected free speech. As a form of political expression, however, flag burning is often more inflammatory than persuasive. There are better ways to get others to listen to your viewpoint.

Indeed, for many Americans, especially those who risked their lives defending what the flag stands for, to witness desecration of the flag itself is painful.

And yet, we honor our own liberty by allowing others to practice theirs. It’s understandably maddening to many Americans, especially those who fought for our flag , to hear abstract legal arguments about how flag desecration is a constitutionally protected form of expression. Technically speaking, that’s true, and yet as an argument against the flag -desecration amendment pending before Congress, it misses the point.

More important for us is our belief that the flag is strong enough to withstand any and all attacks against it, including the occasional burning. It gets its strength from every American who has worked to make our country strong and fought to keep it free. In principle, our flag is special because of the freedom it stands for. Even the freedom to do thoughtless, insensitive things like flag burning, in the guise of free speech. It’s telling that many, many of the world’s nations have assorted laws against desecrating their own flags. And so many of those nations are far less free than is ours. What do their flags stand for?

Our flag has endured for more than 200 years without federal protection because it didn’t need any. It still doesn’t. The small number of flag burnings each year makes this amendment an unnecessary growth of government under the guise of honoring Old Glory.

Ironically, passage of this constitutional amendment may lead to more flag burnings, not fewer. Flag burners love nothing more than the publicity and martyrdom that would come from an arrest. That’s why, if anything, flag burning appears to be on the decline since it was declared a constitutionally protected act. Criminalizing the act would turn silly street theater into minor martyrdom for flag burners. Why give them that satisfaction?

The Denver Post
Denver, Colo.
May 25, 1998

The most contentious free speech issue before Congress is a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow the nation to impose penalties for desecrating the American flag. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1989 ruling, held that a Texas statute barring the burning of the flag was inconsistent with the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

A proposed amendment, written in response to that decision, has been approved by the U.S. House. Should it receive a two-thirds majority in the Senate in an upcoming vote, it would go to the legislatures of the individual states for ratification.

Broad opposition to the amendment has developed as the vote draws near. Just this month, the liberal People for the American Way and the conservative Institute for Justice, urged its defeat.

Spokesmen for the groups, who have rarely agreed on anything in the past, explained that they considered the amendment "terrible" because it would be the "first time in over two centuries that the Bill of Rights has been restricted." They added, "What distinguishes our free society from authoritarian regimes is a freedom of expression and tolerance even of expression that is hateful to us."

We agree, but that is not the only basis on which we ask Sens. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Wayne Allard to vote no. As a practical matter, flag burning is not a major U.S. problem. Despite the court's decision making it legal in the 50 states, flag burning hasn't become widespread. In fact, two of the most recent controversies over flag burning in this country involved the Confederate flag and a flag containing the logo of the Cleveland Indians.

The individual charged in the latter case defended his action by pointing out that if it is OK to burn an American flag it is surely OK to burn the Cleveland Indians logo. It is hard to argue with that point of view.

The flag stands for a series of core freedoms, and the best defense of the flag is a defense of those freedoms. This Memorial Day would be a grand opportunity not only to display Old Glory, but also to honor the freedom it symbolizes and the men and women who died fighting to preserve it.

The News-Times
Danbury, Conn.

Who remembers Gregory Lee Johnson?

A number of Americans, it seems, including a goodly number of U.S. senators.

A dozen years ago, at the Republican National Convention, Johnson burned an American flag on the steps of the Dallas City Hall, an act that caused his arrest. Fully 48 states and two centuries of court rulings provided and upheld such a punishment.

But Johnson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which said he was wrongly arrested because his act was free expression protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

His was one of 45 reported flag burnings in more than 200 years, with the most occurring between 1966 and 1971 in protest of the Vietnam War.

Congress reacted by introducing legislation giving it and the states the "power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States," as the amendment was worded in part. The House passed the measure in 1995, but it failed to get the required two-thirds vote in the Senate necessary to send it to the states for ratification.

The amendmemt once again will be before the Senate in the next week or two. The Senate's makeup has changed slightly with last November's election, but the amendment could again fall or rise by a few votes. In 1995, the measure lacked three votes for passage.

There have been 11,000 proposed changes to the Constitution in our history, but only 26 have succeeded and became amendments. And only one of those restricted personal liberty - for awhile. It was Prohibition, banning the manufacture and sale of liquor. It was repealed after Americans decided it was a socially costly experiment in legislating morals.

We can think of better ways to show our disgust with stupid goverment actions than burning the flag, but we support the high court-supported right of those who do lest those other means are denied, one by one.

The Hartford Courant
Hartford, Conn.
July 3, 1998

As Americans prepare to hoist the Stars and Stripes in celebration of Independence Day, many members of Congress seem bent on trivializing the Constitution through unnecessary amendments.

The Senate Judiciary Committee recently approved an amendment that would ban flag desecration for any reason. The measure will be debated on the Senate floor after the July 4 congressional recess. The House has already approved the amendment by more than the two-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments.

Senate Republicans, who are wrapping themselves with the flag in preparation for the election campaign, need a few Democratic votes to reach the two-thirds threshold. One Democrat that the GOP majority is hoping to convert on this issue is Connecticut's Joseph I. Lieberman.

Mr. Lieberman surely understands that it's impossible to legislate patriotic values. In his public life, he has shown a healthy respect for the essence of free speech in American democracy.

Twice in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that desecrating the flag is a form of free speech. Congress cannot remove this constitutional protection by passing a law, the court ruled.

Chagrined Republicans and a few Democrats who want dissidents either to love the flag their way or go to jail are now using another means to reach their end: a constitutional amendment .

Flag desecration as a form of political dissent or artistic expression is rare. It is undeserving of a constitutional ban. There are already laws to punish those who stomp on the flag out of mischief or endanger public safety by burning it.

A vast majority of Americans cherish their flag and need no laws or constitutional amendments to remind them what it stands for. Above all else, the flag is a symbol of individual freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The best way to protect the flag is to honor the protections enshrined in the Constitution for all Americans, not just those who agree with us.

Record-Journal
Meriden, Conn.
May 24, 1998

Let's keep the Bill of Rights By James H. Smith, Executive Editor, There are times we need to think twice, or deeper than we usually allow ourselves to think. We need to examine our own ideas and thoughts. Question ourselves.

The country is facing another round of angst over an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban flag desecration. Sometimes when I run my flag up my flagpole in my yard, I get misty eyed over all that it symbolizes. I love my country and the things it stands for. I do not want to see the flag burned or ripped or shown disrespect, and I wonder why some people decide to desecrate it.

I wonder.

Well, Josh Gibson was the best catcher who ever lived, but he couldn't play baseball in the major leagues because his skin was the wrong color. The flag didn't wave for him.

Under the United States, with its declaration of independence in 1776, generations of African-Americans continued to be enslaved. It took a war and a man named Lincoln to end it in 1863. The flag did not wave for slaves. It did not wave a century after emancipation when police dogs gnashed and high-pressure fire hoses slammed black children against the sides of buildings for daring to ask for equality, for the right to vote, for "liberty and justice for all."

How would I feel, I wonder, about the American flag if I saw hooded cowards drag my father out of his house and lynch him for the crime of being black? If, after all the Indian Wars were over and America's Indians were pushed onto reservations, if in 1890 I were among some 300 Sioux walking to Canada, I wonder how I would have felt about the American flag being carried by U.S. Cavalry at Wounded Knee. The soldiers surrounded me and my family and my neighbors and started shooting. They killed most of us, children, women, men. I wonder how I would have felt about that flag. How about when Lake Erie died? What about a country that lets industrial polluters kill a Great Lake? Or when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire, it was so polluted?

What about if, because I was an Irish-American, and only because I was, I couldn't get a job in this country? Or if I was an American woman, and only because I was a woman, I got paid less than a man.

I understand when people say this country has not protected them, or the things they hold dear. I do not want to see the flag burned, but I can understand Americans who want to burn it. They are trying to point out a grave injustice. They are trying to bring attention to something that is wrong, something that does not live up to the ideals and foundation of the United States of America.

United States senators are now contemplating a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If successful, it would then go to state legislatures where, if approved, the Constitution would be amended; and the First Amendment would be eroded.

What is great about this country is that it moves toward upholding our ideals. Americans do not want a hollow pledge. We truly believe in liberty and justice for all. It has taken people exercising their rights and freedoms of expression to remind us the pledge is real.

So many have died to preserve freedom, the very soul of our democracy. We have fought wars to gain our independence from an oppressive monarch, to end slavery and to prevent world conquest by tyrants. Hundreds of thousands of our countrymen and women have died protecting our freedom. That is why we cannot allow the banning of flag desecration. Freedom is not just for the things we agree with. Freedom is to allow expression of things we disagree with, thoughts and ideas we abhor. We cannot dilute the Bill of Rights. If we chip away at one freedom, we will lose all our freedom.

The Washington Post
Washington, D.C.
July 5, 1998

The idea of a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning is one of those long-smoldering non-solutions to non-problems that flare up when Congress has nothing better to think about. The non-problem is that giant rash of flag burnings around the country that -- somewhat inconveniently for supporters of the amendment -- isn't happening. This particular form of expression is, in fact, exceedingly rare. But even if the practice were widespread and corroding the populace's regard for America's symbols and values, the proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution would still be an affront to free speech. Over the loud objections of First Amendment advocates, the proposal would grant Congress "power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

The nine lives of this unnecessary and wrongheaded amendment would be merely a case study in Congress's ability to waste time pursuing imagined public obsessions, except for the danger that one of these years it actually will pass. And this could be the year. The amendment has already passed the House of Representatives, and it received 63 votes in the Senate back in 1995 -- only a few short of the two-thirds necessary to be sent on to the states for ratification. Recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent it to the floor by a vote of 11 to 7.

Yet the arguments for the amendment are no better than they ever were. Of course, the flag is still a precious symbol and still worthy of respect, and burning it is still an odious form of political expression. But none of this separates it from dozens of other expressive actions that are equally offensive to our way of life. We do not contemplate constitutional amendments to exempt from First Amendment protection cross burnings, swastikas or other symbolic expressions of bigotry. Having an exception for desecration of the flag would probably not eviscerate the broader protections of the First Amendment . But it would, in effect, turn the "no" in the hallowed phrase "Congress shall make no law" into an "almost no" -- which is a singular erosion of the principle for which the First Amendment stands. This principle has survived and enriched this country through periods in which unfettered expression caused great political stresses. Why should it be compromised now to prevent Americans from burning flags that they weren't planning to ignite in the first place.

By Nat Hentoff
Sept. 12, 1998

As a patriotic welcome to the recently returned members of the Senate, I present the testimony of Marvin Virgil Stenhammar before the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 8. The committee was considering "the tradition and importance of protecting the United States flag."

At issue is a proposed constitutional amendment to the First Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Last year, the House triumphantly passed the proposal by a vote of 310 to 114. Almost half the Democratic members saluted.

This adornment to the First Amendment has 61 sponsors in the Senate. With six more votes, the only addition to the First Amendment since it was ratified will pass and go on to the states. Forty-nine state legislatures -- all except for Vermont -- already have passed resolutions insisting that Congress stand by the flag.

Since it will take three-quarters of the states to change the First Amendment, all that is needed now is the assent of the Senate.

Moreover, as Anthony Jordan, national commander of the American Legion, wrote to The Post [letter, July 25]: "In numerous polls, 80 percent of the American people want returned to them the right to protect the U.S. flag from acts of physical desecration ."

Who would dare defy the will of the people and their representatives?

Marvin Virgil Stenhammar is a former paratrooper and Special Forces Green Beret. A veteran of Beirut, Panama and Desert Storm, he is permanently disabled "as a direct result of my 15 years of service to our country."

"Though many of my colleagues and friends died or were wounded in action," he testified before the Senate committee, "they really were not wounded for the flag but rather for what the flag stands for — liberty. Flags, no matter how honored, do not have rights. People do."

Stenhammar describes himself as "a true conservative" and does not want "the symbol of the government to become more important than the people's rights to live free under the government."

As Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) has pointed out, if the Senate gets the two-thirds vote necessary for the passage of this true desecration of the flag, it would "align the United States with totalitarian governments like China, Cuba and Iran." In those bastions of patriotism, it is indeed a crime to desecrate the flag.

And in an appropriately timed July 4 op-ed article in the New York Times, Craig Nelsen writes of a friend, Ali, who, as a young boy in Jordan, "could go to jail for not singing the national anthem." He is now an American and — writes Nelsen — "talks eagerly of his boy's future in America, the land of the free."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is enthusiastically in favor of violating the First Amendment in order to protect the flag by ignoring its meaning. He has written a song, "I Love Old Glory." I hope that some day the senator will meet Ali, formerly of Jordan. I know that Sen. Hatch has been following Supreme Court decisions from way back, but one of them apparently slipped by him.

That case, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, involved the expulsion from public school of Jehovah's Witnesses children. They had refused to salute the flag because of their religious conviction that the Old Testament commands, "Thou shalt not bow down to any graven image."

Justice Robert Jackson, writing for the court, addressed the argument that national unity is the basis of national security and, therefore, the flag is an essential way to achieve that unity.

Jackson pointed out that "if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion -- or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

"Freedom to differ," Jackson said, "is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

Before the Senate adjourns in October for the rest of the year, it will vote on the flag amendment to the Constitution. That is, the Senate will reveal to us whether it believes we should make a graven image of our flag.

May 3, 1999

Once again, Congress is preparing a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. The Senate Judiciary Committee reported the amendment by an 11 to 7 vote on Thursday, and it now heads to the full Senate. The amendment would be merely a testament to Congress's ability to waste time pandering to imagined public obsessions, except that its prospects in the 106th Congress are ominously strong.

The last time the amendment received a Senate vote, in 1995, the measure was only a few votes shy of the two-thirds majority it needed to pass. Now, however, the composition of the Senate has changed, and at least one former opponent apparently is reconsidering. Since the amendment retains strong support in the House of Representatives, there is a real chance it will pass and be sent on to the states for ratification.

The flag-burning amendment is the sort of feel-good legislation whose irrelevance to real problems of government is exceeded only by the severity of its attack on an important principle. In the interest of protecting a symbol — a treasured symbol — its proponents would amend the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech for the first time in the Constitution's history.

This violence to our constitutional heritage is intended to address a problem that simply does not exist. Very few flags are being burned, and those few that are hardly constitute a threat to the structure and design of democratic government — which is, after all, the matter with which the Constitution is concerned. The amendment would weaken one of the fundamental pillars of American political culture in order to score a cheap political victory against the most marginal of political expressions.

Proponents of the amendment jump through hoops to argue that the physical desecration of the flag is not political expression. (Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska even managed to imply at Thursday's committee hearing that the Littleton school massacre was somehow linked to flag burning in that both represent a lack of "respect for something bigger than ourselves.") But the reality is that flag burning is capable of riling such political passions only because it is expressive speech of precisely the type our tradition protects. To authorize Congress to ban flag burning, as the amendment would, is to place within the Constitution itself the idea that the First Amendment's hallowed phrase — "Congress shall make no law" — does not quite mean what it says. That is a far greater threat to our heritage than flag burning could ever present.

Northwest Florida Daily News
Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

Sooner or later but probably sooner, the 105th Congress will take up a proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. The amendment was a bad idea in 1995, when it was last voted on, and it's a bad idea now.

The key difference between 1995 and today is that the House and Senate are considered a tad more conservative; the flag amendment could pass. That's why it is important that Northwest Florida's congressional delegation - Sens. Bob Graham and Connie Mack and Rep. Joe Scarborough, all of whom supported the measure two years ago - take a dispassionate look at this passionately argued topic and come down on the side of liberty, not political expediency.

Particularly in the Senate, where the flag amendment was defeated only narrowly in 1995, Sens. Graham and Mack could make a crucial difference.

Why is the anti-desecration amendment a bad idea?

First, it would significantly alter the U.S. Constitution, limiting the freedom of political speech provided in the First Amendment by carving out an "exception" for flag desecration. If Congress approves the amendment and sends it to the states for ratification. it will have said that an icon of freedom is more important than a principle of freedom.

Second, it's an attempt to regulate an act that is rarely committed. Robert Justin Goldstein, a flag scholar at Oakland University in Michigan, found fewer than 45 reported flag burnings between 1777, when the flag was adopted, and 1989. An act of such infrequency simply does not warrant a constitutional remedy.

Third, there are already laws against burning a flag that's not your property - the same laws that prohibit damaging or defacing any property that isn't your own. And, as Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey observed in 1995: "The community's revulsion at those who bum a flag, and the action that follows as a result of that revulsion is all that we need. It has contained the problem without the government getting involved."

Fourth, lawmakers who acknowledge the constitutional pitfalls of a flag amendment, but who shrug and vote for it anyway, are engaging not in responsible lawmaking but in political pandering.

Politics was at the heart of Rep. Scarborough's 1995 vote in favor of the flag amendment. After the vote, he told this newspaper's editorial board that he recognized the arguments against such an amendment, but he knew that opposing it would so inflame his constituents that the resulting flap might distract him from more pressing work, such as the BRAC struggle.

Rep. Scarborough had chosen his battles, and flag burning wasn't to be one of them. Political strategy, pure and simple.

Well, mavbe not so pure. The flag amendment is a threat to freedom and is wholly unnecessary. The proper thing, Messrs. Scarborough, Graham and Mack, is to resisi: the temptation to honorer symbol of liberty by perversely limiting the liberty it symbolizes. Vote no.

Florida Today
Melbourne, Fla.
July 3, 1998

By Al Neuharth

Our flag will be flying from more than 20 million public buildings, private homes or front yards this July 4 holiday. A couple million more small flags will be waved at parades or fireworks displays.

Since Betsy Ross sewed the first Stars and Stripes in 1776, Old Glory has been the symbol of all the freedoms for which this country stands.

While most of us honor the flag this weekend, someone might try to dishonor or destroy it. Of course, we should discourage that. But we shouldn't ban it.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1989: "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedoms that this cherished emblem represents."

That court ruling sparked political and emotional reactions which now have us on the verge of a constitutional amendment to ban flag burnings or other desecrations.

The U.S. House passed such a measure by 310-114 last year. The U.S. Senate is set to take up the bill shortly after the July 4 holiday. It's apparently within a vote or two of the necessary two- thirds majority.

The emotional support for such an amendment is understandable. But a thoughtful analysis shows flag burning is not a serious problem requiring tinkering with the Bill of Rights. Headlines:

• In all of history, there are fewer than 50 recorded cases of flag desecration.
• The first was in 1861 in Liberty, Miss., as a protest to President Lincoln's banning of secession by the Confederate states.
• More than half of the remainder came in the 1960s, as protests against the Vietnam War.

I think anyone who burns the flag is stupid, silly or sick. But I also believe Congress should make no law taking away any of our First Amendment freedoms.

If you agree, better tell your senator soon.

Star-Banner
Ocala, Fla.

Most speechAmericans are infuriated when they see the nation's flag spit upon, burned or otherwise defiled. It's hard to defend that as an act of free -- however reprehensible -- which is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

There may be some irony in the fact that Congress is once again considering a constitutional amendment to prohibit desecration of the American Flag, but is well on its way to defeating a constitutional amendment to balance the nation's budget.

Ask members of Congress to prevent the financial bondage of future generations from their unfettered license for spending other people's money, and they decline. Request that they shackle American citizens' right to speak freely without fear of their government's retribution, and they acquiesce.

This group of people, elected to preserve the individual freedoms and liberties that have made the United States the envy of the world, now wish to deny its citizens the right to dissent or voice their opinions.

However distasteful and disrespectful destruction of the flag may be to the vast majority of Americans, in 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that desecration of our national banner is a form of free speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment.

Yes, this is an emotional issue. There are hundreds of thousands of men and women who are passionate about Old Glory, citizens of this land who lost friends, family and even their limbs to guarantee the flag would fly free.

They also fought, sacrificed and died to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that flag represented. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of those rights.

The senseless demonstrations that occurred in the 60s during the civil right's movement, in, the late 60s and early 70s as protests to the war in Vietnam, and in the 80s as foreign nationals demonstrated in front of our embassies in Mid-East countries are abhorrent to the majority.

But U.S. Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest, R-Maryland, who voted against the amendment in 1994, explained why he did so.

"It took me a few years to realize that Vietnam War protesters' right to be obnoxious, to be unpatriotic ... was the essence of what we fought for. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, just as surely as it means the freedom to be wise -- and no government should ever be so powerful as to differentiate between the two."

The Stars and Stripes is one of the most beautiful flags in the world -- that's not national vanity, just pride in a symbol that stands for freedom wherever people value that precious commodity.

While the fabric of our flag can be physically torn, burned or desecrated, the fabric of our national spirit is, and always will be, invincible.

Politican John Moss noted that "When we lose our liberties, it does not happen in one dramatic moment, but gradually and quietly."

Silence is a terrible price to have to pay for a constitutional folly.

The Orlando Sentinel
Orlando, Fla.
July 4, 1998

On this, the Fourth of July, Old Glory reigns.

Few images sum up the American experience like the United States' flag - the storied Stars and Stripes, which has inspired untold millions of people.

The flag has led Americans into battle, punctuated U.S. conquest of the moon, served as a beacon for the oppressed everywhere and fluttered grandly over hundreds of Independence Day celebrations.

Its red, white and blue symbolize this nation's philosophical fabric, from the Declaration of Independence to the liberties spelled out in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Americans hold those rights inalienable - not to be compromised for any reason.

From freedom of speech to the right of trial by jury, they form the heart and soul of the democratic experience - the essence of the liberty that keeps Americans free.

So, it is troubling that there are those who - without thinking the issue through - would use the symbol of that liberty to erode the freedom it represents.

At first blush, the idea of desecrating the American flag seems an act so objectionable that it warrants prohibition. But if the flag symbolizes Americans' freedom to express their discontent, outlawing its desecration would destroy far more than a piece of cloth. It would destroy the liberty that cloth represents.

That concept, however, seems to have eluded many in Congress. Either having given the issue too little thought or yielding to the simple solution of protecting the symbol instead of the freedom, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a measure that would lead to a constitutional amendment to prohibit "physical desecration of the flag ."

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee followed suit recently, with a vote by the full Senate to come later.

But, apart from the very real damage that would result from undermining the Bill of Rights, is flag -burning a problem?

Actually, it happens quite rarely - perhaps a half-dozen times a year. That pattern has been consistent throughout American history. So the proposed amendment would attempt to cure an ill that essentially doesn't exist.

Even more important, though, would be the chilling effect that any restriction of personal liberties would unleash. Defending the ideals of freedom and justice should be the paramount concern. That calls upon Americans to avoid holding the flag higher than the rights it represents - ones that make this nation the envy of the world.

Those rights include engaging in political protest, of which flag -burning - albeit objectionable - is one.

Most Americans, of course, follow a code of etiquette in displaying and handling the flag and wouldn't dream of treating Old Glory with disrespect.

Willful damage to the flag by one person, however, is just as worthy of protection as another person's right to speak his mind about that damage.

Shoring up those rights has strengthened America's democracy through the years.

So, on this Independence Day, fly the flag with pride but protect with your life the freedoms it represents.

St. Petersburg Times
St. Petersburg, Fla.

Copyright 2000 Times Publishing Company

Don't join the oppressors

In the name of giving Elian Gonzalez the chance to grow up in a free country, Florida's U.S. senators, Democrat Bob Graham and Republican Connie Mack, support legislation to grant the 6-year-old Cuban child American citizenship. The move would block the Immigration and Naturalization Service from returning Elian to his father in Cuba. Yet, at the same time, they support a constitutional amendment that would undermine American freedom and give Americans a taste of Fidel Castro's version of patriotism.

The Flag Desecration Amendment, which has already passed the House, is expected to come up for a vote in the Senate this spring. The constitutional amendment would open the door to criminal prosecution for anyone who desecrates the U.S. flag, which would give the United States something in common with Cuba. Just last month, a prominent dissident in Cuba was jailed for organizing protests and "insulting symbols of the fatherland." The man had hung a Cuban flag upside-down. If this amendment passes, America will create its own cadre of political prisoners.

Touted by American Legionnaires as a patriotic gesture, in past years the amendment has come within a few Senate votes of garnering the two-thirds majority needed for passage. Only the courageous votes of a handful of Senate Republicans joining their mostly Democratic colleagues has kept the Bill of Rights from being amended for the first time in more than 200 years.

The American Legion says its members fought and died for the flag and, as a treasured national symbol, it should be legally protected from despoilment. American soldiers, though, didn't go to war to protect apiece of cloth but the American principles of freedom the flag represents. And it is those very freedoms - to denounce a government action and dissent through symbolic action - that would be lost if the Flag Desecration Amendment passes. Flag burning is a rare act of political defiance and while deeply offensive, it doesn't endanger our democratic structure. To amend the Constitution in response to such a marginal problem elevates political pandering to new heights.

In a Senate hearing on Elian's citizenship last week Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, uttered a sentiment shared by many of his colleagues, that returning Elian to Cuba would be sending him back to "one of the last prison nations in the world." There is no political freedom in Cuba, and if this amendment becomes part of our Constitution, there will be less freedom in the United States. Desecrating the flag is an act of political expression that is currently punished in countries such as China, Iraq and Cuba. The United States doesn't belong in that club.

July 15, 1998

You can call Ralph Lauren honest. The man whom many call the nation's foremost designer plainly admits that he pilfers the image of the American flag as inspiration for his conglomerate of clothing lines. Old Glory adorns so many of his hottest-selling designs that he felt compelled this week to donate $13-million to preserve one of the nation's most revered flags. Smithsonian curators will use the money to restore the flag on display at its entrance, the same flag that inspired Francis Scott Key's poem, "The Star-Spangled Banner," 184 years ago.

You can also call Lauren the country's foremost flag desecrator. His initials often replace the bright stars of the flag on his Polo Jeans and Chaps logos. The nearly life-sized images of the flag printed on cotton T-shirts often self-destruct in any washing machine. Lauren even prints huge red, white and blue images on the back of his shorts. The shorts beg comparison to Larry Flint's decision to wear an American flag as a diaper when his First Amendment suit reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Do you suppose Lauren's designs helped inspire the proposed constitutional amendment outlawing desecration of the U.S. flag that is being waved through Congress? Some of his fashions are gaudy enough to be offensive. Certainly, the language passed in the House version of the anti-desecration amendment - "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States" - is vague enough to put Lauren's $900-million company in jeopardy.

Maybe Lauren is using his donation to make up for this national travesty that reduces the flag to an accent for one's backside. Or maybe he's just trying to influence the senators who will vote on the amendment , which was overwhelmingly approved by the House and is two undecided Senate votes away from passage. Once it clears Congress, it would need to be ratified by 37 states, but that is not expected to be a problem.

All of the lawmakers supporting this so-called flag -burning amendment should call on the red, white and blue images on the back of his shorts. Smithsonian to refuse Lauren's donation. In fact, they should boycott Lauren's fashions and refuse his campaign contributions. If these legislators are willing to sacrifice freedom of speech in the name of protecting the flag from desecration, then surely they will want to have none of Lauren's dirty money.

Sounds silly, doesn't it? So does the idea that our American values need constitutional protection from a few flag burners.

A better way to honor our flag

U.S. Sens. Connie Mack and Bob Graham must have missed their high school civics lesson on America's first principles. How else to understand their annual support of a constitutional amendment that exalts a patriotic symbol over fundamental American freedoms?

Ever since the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that burning a flag is an exercise of free speech, Congress has attempted to squirm around it. First, it passed a federal law banning flag burning, but the high court threw the law out as unconstitutional. So lawmakers resorted to trying to amend the Constitution.

The last two times the flag desecration amendment has come up, it passed overwhelmingly in the House but was stymied in the Senate. Last year, although it didn't come up for a formal vote, vote-counters put it only three votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed for passage in the Senate.

Now it's back again.

If the measure were to pass Congress, it would then go to the states, where it would need the backing of three-quarters of all state legislatures, something it would probably get.

Supporters of the amendment say they are just protecting the symbol of this nation from dishonor. But it's backward to think you can honor the flag by gouging the Constitution. Our flag is worthy of respect only if it represents a nation that protects the civil liberties of its citizens. Old Glory may be profaned when it is burned or mutilated, but it is desecrated more thoroughly when speech is censored, religion is repressed or elections are rigged.

The Stuart News
Stuart, Fla.
May 16, 1999

Uphold our Constitution: Proposed amendment would diminish liberty

Congress seems on the road to desecrating the United States Constitution in the pretense of protecting our national flag. Both the Senate and House are expected to vote in the next few weeks on proposals for a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. Any such amendment would then need ratification by three-fourths of the states before taking effect.

Those eager to do this apparently forget that one of the things our flag symbolizes, the right of free speech, would be undermined if they get their way.

Some argue that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech is meant to be taken literally, that the word "speech" in that context means spoken words and nothing else. It's an idea that contradicts the Supreme Court's interpretation, is dismissive of non-verbal expressions of conscience, and it violates the spirit of perhaps the most important of all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Deliberate flag desecration actually is very rare. It has happened on relatively few occasions since the Vietnam War protests more than two decades ago. Of course, whenever it does happen it is hugely offensive and we regard it as reprehensible.

Yet, our free-speech protection is not just intended for speech that is so conventional that it needs no protecting; rather, it is to protect political speech that arouses fierce objections. America is exceptional in the history of mankind largely because our leaders (despite occasional steps backward) have understood how crucial it is to let citizens have their say.

A lot of flag desecration stems from ignorance and carelessness. The national colors are misused and abused here in our communities - strewn around carelessly, flown until torn and tattered, stuck on car antennas row by row in sales lots, lined up to catch our eye outside model homes, and used in other commercial, attention-getting ways contrary to recognized flag etiquette. It doesn't take a constitutional amendment to register your gripe; just ask offenders, politely but firmly, to stop.

Some lawmakers who favor the proposed amendment are certainly sincere. Others, perhaps, are simply in search of a popular cause, or fear being accused of lacking patriotism if they dare oppose it.

All Americans should be taught to revere our flag. It is a cherished symbol of all that is good and fine about our nation. The flag also symbolizes the striving of our people to practice - to fully live - the lofty principles the founders left to us in the U.S. Constitution.

The Stars and Stripes forms enduring memories for Americans. This is the flag we held in our tiny fists as children atop parents' shoulders at parades; the flag we saluted at scout meetings; the flag to which we pledged allegiance to start each school day.

For our armed forces, this is the flag they marched behind as bands blared; the flag they ceremoniously raised and lowered at military posts around the world; the flag seen behind them in old photographs; the flag many followed into battle; the flag that draped the caskets of dead heroes.

Military veterans, especially, should recall the oath they took upon joining their service. Though worded a bit differently for commissioned officers and for enlisted personnel, the oaths have this phrase in common: "I ... do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..." The Constitution. Not the flag; the Constitution.

That is why we must uphold our Constitution, despite those rare acts of contempt for our flag. The proposed anti-desecration amendment may at first seem so patriotic, but it is contrary to the long-term good of the country. We revere our flag. We revere our Constitution more.

The Tampa Tribune
Tampa, Fla.
July 7, 1998

The U.S. Senate is preparing to vote for the third time on a bit of nonsense known as the " flag desecration" amendment , which would effectively make an exception to our free speech right guaranteed by the First Amendment .

The proposed amendment is simple and dangerous - simple because it is one sentence long, and dangerous because it tramples on that important right. It reads: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." As we have noted before, it is simple, pointless, dripping with emotion and utterly stupid.

This is the congressional answer to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has twice ruled that flag burning is protected political expression. It's the type of legislation that puffed-up politicians can proudly point to as an example of their patriotism in an election year. Last month the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of this unnecessary amendment . Distressingly, our own Rep. Jim Davis was among its supporters. Now it's the Senate 's turn.

We can think of no reason to support the proposed amendment except for political pandering. The framers gave us the First Amendment because they wanted to protect expression they thought essential to a free society. More importantly, they would defend that right, whatever the consequences.

Yet this measure would prevent those who would deface the flag from expressing their views, no matter how loathsome.

On a gut level, we can understand the feelings of those who favor the amendment . We can understand anyone who wants to protect the symbol of our beliefs. We can understand how those who have fought for this country or lost loved ones who defended it would be horrified by the destruction of the flag .

But in understanding, we cannot forget the principles the flag symbolizes.

As Roger Pilon, senior fellow and director at the Center of Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, says, "People give their lives for principles, not for symbols. When we dishonor those principles, to protect their symbol, we dishonor the men who died to preserve them. That is not a business this Congress should be about."

We would urge both Sen. Bob Graham and Sen. Connie Mack, among the cosponsors of the amendment , to rethink their sponsorship and vote against it.

Feb. 19, 2000

Old Glory and the Bill of Rights

One thing is apparent about those who would criminalize flag desecration: They don't give up.

After four defeats in 10 years, lawmakers will try again next month to garner the votes needed to send a proposed constitutional amendment to the states for ratification. Once again, we hope wiser views will prevail.

W